Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202228787)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228787

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

3 July 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the door entry system.
    2. Repairs to the car park lighting.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a low-rise block. He has lived in the property since 2017, and currently resides with his pregnant partner. The landlord has told this Service that it is aware the resident is disabled and has mobility issues.
  2. On 28 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the lights in the communal car park for his block were not working. He emailed the landlord again on 16 October 2022 and stated the lights had not been repaired and this had been an issue for the past 5 years. He stated the car park was in darkness after the sun had set. The landlord replied to the resident the following day to say that the repairs had been provisionally booked in for 1 November 2022.
  3. On 1 November 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the amount of time taken, and quality of work, to repairs to the door entry system and the lighting in the car park. He stated that the door entry system was continually breaking, and the car park lights were out for months at a time. He further stated that these were both recurring issues.
  4. The landlord provided a response at stage 1 of its complaint process on 17 November 2022 and apologised for the delays to the repairs. It stated that a contractor attended the block on 10 November 2022 to assess the repairs and a further visit was booked for 21 November 2022 to establish the extent of the work required. In relation to the car park lighting, the landlord confirmed that an engineer was booked to visit the block, but due to the nature of the repair, a contractor was needed. The landlord said that these repairs would also be addressed on 21 November 2022. As a means of redress, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for time and trouble experienced by the resident and the delays to the repairs.
  5. The resident replied to the landlord the same day. He declined the compensation offered and requested that the complaint remain open until the repairs had been completed. He suggested compensation of £1,000 would be more reasonable to resolve the matter and said if the landlord felt the complaint should be escalated to Stage 2 of the complaint process, that was its choice. The landlord chose to escalate the matter to stage 2 and sent the resident an acknowledgement of this on 14 December 2022.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2023. It stated it was satisfied that the repairs had been completed as and when the issues arose. The landlord accepted there had been recurring faults with the carpark lights, which were repaired on 20 January 2022. In relation to the door entry system, the landlord stated that a further visit to the block was needed, and this was expected to take place on 1 February 2022. As a means of redress, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £430 for its delays in correspondence, time and trouble experienced by the resident and the delays to the repairs.
  7. On 2 February 2023, the resident informed the landlord that he would not be accepting its offer of compensation. Instead, he informed the landlord he would accept £750 as settlement of the matter, providing the repairs were satisfactorily completed. The landlord agreed to the offer and payment was made on 4 August 2023.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied as the repairs carried out to the door entry system and car park lighting were not sufficient. He told this Service that the door entry system was still in need of repair and the car park lights were still failing during the winter months. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman and stated that as a resolution he would like the repairs to both to be completed properly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has informed this Service that repairs to the door entry system and car park lighting have been an ongoing issue for a number of years. Due to the passage of time, it has not been practical for historic repairs to be investigated by this Service. Therefore, while the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on the repairs reported by him in September 2022.
  2. In his correspondence with this service, the resident has also raised other matters that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the repairs to the door entry system and car park lighting, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 23 January 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
  3. The resident has also described how the issue has impacted on his health. It is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions/inaction and the resident’s health. However, we can give consideration to any general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord.

Repairs to the door entry system

  1. The resident has told this Service that the door entry system has not been functioning correctly for a number of years. This has allowed unauthorised people access into the block and resulted in communal areas being vandalised. The resident is disabled and has mobility issues. He stated that the disrepair is causing him distress as he does not feel safe in his own home. Evidence supplied by the landlord confirms that the door entry system has been subject to a number of repairs over the past 7 years, some of which were caused by acts of vandalism.
  2. The landlord received reports that the door entry system needed repair on 14 June 2022 and 27 July 2022. It appears that both jobs were cancelled with no rationale recorded. On 30 October 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the door entry system was still not working. On 1 November 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that repairs to the door entry system had been an ongoing issue. The landed attended the repair on 10 November 2022 and recorded that further investigation and fault finding was required due to the door entry system being vandalised.
  3. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the home, including access routes. It also states that the landlord must take reasonable care to keep communal areas of the building in good repair. The landlord’s repair policy states that general repairs aim to be completed within 10 working days. The landlord accepted responsibility of the repair, but only after the resident reported it on 30 October 2022. Given that faults were reported in June and July 2022, and had not been addressed, the landlord failed to deal with repairs in line with its own policy.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 17 November 2022, the landlord informed the resident of the reasons why the repair had not been completed and the need for further work. It stated that a contractor would attend the block on 21 November 2022 to assess the extent of the work required and prepare a quote. It stated that following the approval of the quote a new appointment would be necessary for the installation and it was committed to having the repair resolved as soon as possible. The landlord offered to pay the resident £25 in compensation for delays to the repairs to the door entry system (from a total of £50 for all repair delays).
  5. The complaint was escalated, and the door entry system repairs remained outstanding. While the landlord’s repair log shows a contractor did attend the block on 21 November 2022, there is no record of any work being carried out to the door entry system.
  6. The next update the resident received was when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2022. It stated that engineers had attended site on 13 January 2023, and they were expected to complete the repair of the door entry system on 1 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged that despite a number of contractor visits, the repairs remained unresolved, and it stated that it would work with its contractors to understand why the delays had occurred and how they could prevent similar problems arising in the future. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 for the time and trouble experienced chasing the repairs and £100 for the delay in completing them.
  7. While the landlord’s response adhered to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of be fair and put things right, it failed to fully acknowledge the distress and inconvenience the issue had caused the resident, who felt unsafe in his home while the door was insecure.
  8. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with further reassurance as to how this problem would be prevented in the future. The resident has told this Service that upon speaking with contractors who attempted repairs, he was informed that the system needed to be replaced rather than repaired.
  9. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2, and requested the compensation be raised to £750 for all failings. The landlord agreed and payment was made to the resident in August 2023. It is not clear how much of that payment was attributed to the repairs to the door entry system.
  10. The resident informed this Service that the door entry system had not been repaired following the stage 2 complaint response, meaning access to the block is not restricted. The landlord has provided contractor reports which show:
    1. On 4 May 2023, the landlord was informed that the door entry system was not working. A contractor attended the block on 13 June 2023 and reported that the system had been down for some time due to vandalism and needed to be replaced.
    2. On 20 June 2023, a site inspection was carried out and a new system was quoted for as parts had been stolen. The quote was received by the landlord on this date.
    3. On 9 August 2023, the caretaker of the block reported that the block had no security door for more than 2 years due to the system being vandalised. The contractor recorded the system was damaged and the entire system needed to be replaced.
    4. On 15 December 2023, the contractor was asked to attend the block and quote for a new system. The contractor recorded that they had completed this request on two previous occasions because the system had been damaged “a while ago”.
  11. From the evidence provided to this service, the landlord has failed to keep the door entry system in a state of good repair for a significant period of time, despite the matter being repeatedly reported by the resident. A landlord has 3 opportunities at which to rectify issues: the service request, the stage 1 complaint, and the stage 2 complaint. The landlord failed at each opportunity to put things right. These cumulative failings caused the resident distress, and the landlord should have known this from the communications the resident sent it.
  12. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the door entry system. An order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £600 to the resident for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (inclusive of any compensation already paid).

Repairs to the car park lighting

  1. The resident has told this service that the communal door to his block is situated in the car park of the grounds. It is the lights in this car park that are referred to in this complaint. The resident also stated that every winter there are problems with the lights going out, which leaves the car park in total darkness once the sun has gone down. He said this is extremely problematic given the only way to access his block is through the unlit carpark and that this increases the difficulties he already experiences through his mobility issues.
  2. On 28 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the lights in the car park were out again. He stated that the “constant temporary fixes” were not working. The landlord attended the property to carry out the repair on 3 October 2022, which was in line with the response timescales set out in its repair policy, but it is not clear whether the repair was completed on that day. The repair log stated that no cable had been supplied to the miniature circuit breaker (MCB) and the time clock had been removed.
  3. The landlord received a further report that all the lights in the car park were out on 5 October 2022, although it is not clear where this report came from. The landlord failed to repair the lights and on 16 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say that the previous fault to the lights he reported had not been fixed. He stated this was an ongoing problem that he had experienced for the past 5 years.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident the following day and stated that the repairs to the lighting had been booked in for 1 November 2022. The landlord’s timescale to attend the repair was outside of its 10 working-day time scale set out in its repair policy. It was also a reoccurring repair that was known to be causing distress to the resident. It would have been reasonable to have scheduled the repair sooner, especially given the health and safety concerns aligned to the need for functioning outdoor lighting in the winter months.
  5. The landlord’s log suggests it did plan to repair the lights sooner, on 18 October 2022, but the appointment was cancelled. The landlord attended again on 1 November 2022, but there are no details recorded of the work carried out.
  6. On 1 November 2022, the resident complained again to the landlord that the car park lights had been out for months at a time. He said the time taken to make the repairs, and the standard of the repairs given the repeated call outs were not adequate. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 November 2022 but failed to provide the resident with any meaningful update as to when the repairs would be completed.
  7. On 13 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to report that the lights in the car park were all out. A note on the landlord’s repair log stated that a previous visit to the block had noted that there was no cable going to the MCB and a contractor would be needed to assess the situation and provide a quote. This suggests that no repair had been completed since the landlord’s prior visit on 3 October 2022 when the missing cable was noted. Furthermore, the landlord had failed to request the services of a contractor until prompted by the complaints of the resident. This was not appropriate given that the car park was in complete darkness during the winter months when the days were shorter and the associated risks that follow with a lack of effective outdoor lighting.
  8. The landlord called the resident on 15 November 2022 and left a voicemail to say it wanted to discuss his complaint. The landlord contacted the resident the following day and informed him that a contractor was needed, and it would provide further updates once the contractor had confirmed what was required. In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 17 November 2022, the landlord stated that the contractor would be attending the block on 21 November 2022 to complete the repair. The landlord also stated it had discussed the use of LED lights being installed as an alternative, to prevent the recurring issues. The landlord offered to pay resident £25 in compensation for delays to the repairs to the car park lighting (£50 for all repair delays).
  9. The contractor attended the block on 21 November 2022 and repaired 2 out of the 3 lamp posts situated in the car park. On 24 November 2022, a works order was raised for the third lamp post that would require a tower to access it. This was booked in for 22 December 2022.
  10. The landlord failed to update the resident as it had agreed and on 19 December 2022, the resident reported that all the car park lights were out again following the landlord’s “unsuccessful repair”. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email the same day and sent an email to its contractor stating that reattendance was required because, “again the works conducted here have failed.”
  11. The contractor attended the car park at 7am on 22 December 2022. The contractor recorded that it was dark upon his arrival and all the lamp posts were on and working. The contractor further noted that all the lamps went off at dawn and supplied the landlord with photographs as confirmation.
  12. Again, the landlord failed to update the resident as it had agreed, and the resident requested a response on 9 January 2023. The landlord replied to the resident the same day and apologised for the delay in updating him. It stated it was extending his stage 2 response date to allow it to clarify some matters before responding.
  13. The landlord conducted further repair work to the car park lights on 20 January 2023. The requirement to do so suggests that the car park lights were not in full working order following the contractors visit. The repair log for the corresponding period noted “more time required” suggesting the job had not been completed.
  14. In its stage 2 response dated 23 January 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it was satisfied that the repairs had been dealt with as and when they arose, but it would oversee the outstanding repairs to ensure that they were completed. The landlord did not provide an update as to whether they would be using LED lights going forward, as was discussed with the resident. The absence of addressing this point was a missed opportunity for the landlord to provide reassurance to the resident that it was trying to find a permanent and lasting solution to the problem. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 for the time and trouble experienced chasing the repairs and £100 for the delay in completing the repairs.
  15. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2, and requested the compensation be raised to £750 for all failings. The landlord agreed and payment was made to the resident in August 2023. It is not clear how much of that payment was attributed to the repairs to the car park lighting.
  16. This Service has been provided with evidence that suggests further repairs were conducted to the car park lighting following the landlord’s stage 2 response. In addition, the resident has informed this service that during the winter months, the problem with the lights reoccurs.
  17. Although the landlord took responsibility for the repairs, it failed to conduct the repairs in a timely or effective manner. A problem was identified on 3 October 2022, which gave the landlord sufficient information to understand that a specialist contractor was necessary to complete the repair.
  18. The landlord failed to engage the service of a contractor at this time, and only contacted one a month later after further complaints from the resident. The landlord also failed to update the resident about the repairs in a timely manner, causing him time and inconvenience in chasing updates and further distress because he felt unsafe leaving his property during the hours of darkness.
  19. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the car park lighting. An order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £600 to the resident for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (inclusive of any compensation already paid).

Complaint handling

  1. A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 October 2022 to report there had been issues with the communal lights in the carpark for approximately 5 years. He said that despite reporting the repairs (on 28 September and 5 October 2022) they were never carried out effectively, leaving the car park in complete darkness after sunset.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as, “an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action”. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s expression of satisfaction as a complaint and failed to record it as such. It was not appropriate to treat the contact as a service request given the resident had already reported the lights as not working.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 November 2022 and clearly stated that he wished to complain about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the car park lighting and the door entry system. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 2 days later.
  5. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out the timescales in which complaints should be addressed. It states that the resident will receive and acknowledgement within 5 working days and a stage 1 response within 10 working days. While the landlord met the timescales set out in its policy for acknowledging the complaint, its stage 1 response, dated 17 November 2022, was 2 days late. However, the landlord has evidenced that it was in contact with the resident by telephone during this time in relation to his complaint.
  6. The stage 1 response addressed the current state of repairs in respect of the resident’s complaint and offered a means of redress. However, it failed to address the fact that the repairs had been a recurring issue over a number of years. Nor did it set out how it was going to maintain the door entry system going forward. The resident responded to the landlord the following day with an alternative means of redress and stated he wanted the complaint left open until the repairs had been fully completed. The resident also said that he would leave it up to the landlord as to whether it felt it was necessary to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
  7. The landlord did not send a stage 2 acknowledgement to the resident until 14 December 2022. While this was not within the time scales set out in its policy, the resident had not requested an escalation as such, and the landlord had chosen to escalate the complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2023.
  8. The landlord’s complaint policy also states that a stage 2 response will be provided to the resident within 20 working days and if there are to be any delays, it will inform the resident and explain the reasons why. The landlord failed to meet the time scale set out in its own policy and while it did update the resident that there would be a delay, it only did so after the resident made contact chasing the outcome of his complaint.
  9. After exhausting its 2-stage complaint procedure, the landlord later agreed to pay the resident £750 in compensation. It is not clear how this amount was attributed to each failing. While this Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to revisit its offers of compensation to try and put right its evident failings, it is concerning that after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure, it continued to make significant failings. This also evidences that the landlord’s complaint procedure is not functioning as intended to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, which is a failing.
  10. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in its failure to record the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint and the timeliness of its responses. An order has been made that the landlord pay £200 compensation to the resident for the time and trouble the resident encountered in progressing his complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the door entry system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the car park lighting.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1,400 in compensation (which is inclusive of the £750 already paid), made up of:
      1. £600 for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failures in handling repairs to the door entry system.
      2. £600 for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failures in handling repairs to the car park lighting.
      3. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its failures in complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Complete a lasting and effective solution to provide a functioning door entry system, such as the installation work as recommended by its contractors and ensure that all affected residents are kept informed, in writing, of the works above to be carried out, expected timescales to the works and explanations of any delays if they arise.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review its current lighting arrangement for the car park and make the necessary changes to ensure that residents have an effective lighting solution for the car park, with emphasis on it being fully functioning during the winter months.